Monday, August 4, 2014

Obama. Interview. JustinWebb. BBC. 02 Jun 2009?

1.It’s really good to be here. Let’s turn straight
to your big speech, a hugely important speech you’re making in Cairo on
Thursday. Many Muslims think they’re owed an apology, actually, for the Bush
years, and the sins that, in their view, were committed by the United States
during those years. Is this speech in any way an apology?

2.No. I think what we want to do is open a
dialogue. And - you know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the
part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions
about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West. And it is my
firm belief that no one speech is going to solve every problem. There are no
silver bullets. There are very real policy issues that have to be worked
through that are difficult. And, ultimately, it’s going to be action and not
words that determine the path, the progress - from here on out. But it did seem
to me that this was an opportunity for us to get both sides to listen to each
other a little bit more, and hopefully learn something about about different
cultures.

3.You say both sides. So I take, from that, that
Muslims listening to this speech you are hoping will also be changed by it. And
their attitude to the United States, perhaps, changed. And what needs to change
on-- on the behalf of those you are actually speaking to?

4.Well, let’s just take one small example. The US
Muslim population is more numerous than the populations of many majority Muslim
countries. So this notion that somehow America is detached, is removed, sees
some clash of civilizations as inevitable - I think a lot of the the propaganda
and dogma that’s churned out there is inaccurate. Now the flipside is is that,
in the wake of 9/11, what is also true is that in a whole host of our actions -
and sometimes in our words - America has not been as careful to distinguish our
very real need to hunt down extremists who would do us harm, something that’s
necessitated by our self defence. And broader policy differences, or cultural
differences that exist, that are best approached through diplomacy and
conversation and some self reflection on our part. And so that’s the kind of
back and forth that I think is gonna need to take place. And - last point I
made, because I should actually correct myself, when I said both sides. There
are actually many sides to this. Because one of the misperceptions about the
Muslim community is that it’s somehow monolithic, setting aside differences
between Shia and Sunni. The Muslim country that I lived in when I was a child,
Indonesia, obviously, is very different from Pakistan, very different from
Saudi Arabia. And so we have to also recognize that there are going to be
differences based on national identity, and not just faith.

5.You’re making this speech in Cairo. Amnesty International
says there are thousands of political prisoners in Egypt. How do you address
that issue?

6.Right. Well, look - obviously, in the Middle
East, across a wide range of types of governments, there are some human rights
issues. I don’t think there’s any dispute about that. The message I hope to
deliver is that democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion
- those are not simply principles of the west to be hoisted on these countries.
But, rather what I believe to be universal principles that
they can embrace and affirm as part of their national identity, the danger, I
think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply
impose these values on another country with a different history and a different
culture. And I think the thing that we can do, most importantly, is serve as a good
role model. And that’s why, for example, closing Guantanamo, from my
perspective, as difficult as it is, is important. Because part of what we want
to affirm to the world is that these are values that are important, even when
it’s hard. Maybe especially when it’s hard. And not just when it’s easy.

7.Justin Webb: Do you regard President Mubarak as
an authoritarian ruler?

8.President Obama: No, I tend not to use labels for folks. I haven’t met him. I’ve spoken to him on the phone. He has
been a stalwart ally in many respects, to the United States. He has sustained
peace with Israel, which is a very difficult thing to do in that region. But he
has never resorted to, you know, unnecessary demagoging of the issue, and has
tried to maintain that relationship. So I think he has been a force for
stability. And good in the region. Obviously, there have been criticisms
of the manner in which politics operates in Egypt. And, as I said before, the
United States’ job is not to lecture, but to encourage, to lift up what we
consider to be the values that ultimately will work - not just for our country,
but for the aspirations of a lot of people.

9.A lot of people are looking for specifics in
your speech. And one of the areas, they’re gonna be fascinated by, hanging on
your every word, is Israel and the Palestinians, and what you say about that.
You made it very clear, in recent weeks, to the Israeli government, that you
want settlement building to be frozen in existing settlements. They’ve made it
equally clear that they’re not gonna do that. So what happens now?

10.Well, it’s still early in the conversation. I’ve
had one meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I think that we have not seen a
set of potential gestures from other Arab states, or from the Palestinians,
that might deal with some of the Israeli concerns. I do believe that, if you
follow the roadmap approach that has been laid, if Israel abides by its
obligations - that includes no settlements - if the Palestinians abide by their
obligations, to deal with the security situation, to eliminate incitement, if
all this - surrounding Arab states, working with the quartet, are able to
encourage economic development and political development, then I think that we
can actually make some progress. So, you know, one of the things, in the 24/7
news cycle, is very difficult to encourage is patience. And diplomacy is always
a matter of a long hard slog. It’s never a matter of quick results.

11.I’ll accept that. But you have a senior member
of the Israeli cabinet, the transport minister, saying, “I want to say in a
crystal clear manner that the current Israeli government will not accept, in
any fashion, that legal settlement activity be frozen.” I mean, you’ve got a
job of work, and I at least put it like that.

12.Always have a lot of work. Yeah. I mean, nobody
thought this was gonna be easy. If it was easy it would have been done. But I
do think that we’re going to be able to get serious negotiations back on track.
And we’re going to do everything we can. Because not only is it in the interest
of the Palestinian people to have a state, it’s in the interest of the Israeli
people to stabilise the situation there. And it’s in the interest of the United
States that we’ve got two states living side by side in peace and security.

13.What George Bush Senior did, concentrate the
minds of the then Israeli government, was freeze loan guarantees to Israel. I
don’t want to ask you the specifics, because, obviously, you don’t want to say
at this stage. But are there, potentially, sanctions, if I could put it like
that, that you could employ, that you would consider employing, against Israel
if this Israeli government doesn’t do what you want it do?

14.I think that I’ve said my piece on this matter.
We’re going to continue negotiations. We think that it’s early in the process,
but we think we can make some progress.

15.What the Israelis say is that they have managed
to persuade you, at least, to concentrate on Iran. And to give what, behind the
scenes, they’re calling a bit of an ultimatum to the Iranians - that, by the
end of this year, there must be some real progress.

16.Well, the only thing I’d correct on that is I
don’t think the Israelis needed to convince me of that, since I’ve been talking
about it for the last two years. What I have said is that it is in the world’s
interests for Iran to set aside ambitions for a nuclear weapon. But that the
best way to accomplish that is through tough direct diplomacy. Now, what I was
very clear about was that, although I don’t want to put artificial timetables
on that process, we do want to make sure that by the end of this year, we’ve
actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure
whether or not the Iranians are serious. My personal view is that the Islamic
state of Iran has the potential to be an extraordinarily powerful and
prosperous country. They are more likely to achieve that in the absence of
nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. Not just
responses from Israel, by the way, but potentially other states in the region.
And if what’s preventing them from seeing that reality is 30 years of
loggerheads between Iran and the United States, then this may be an opportunity
for us to open the door and see if they walk through. There’s no guarantees
that they respond in a constructive way. That’s part of what we need to test.

17.A couple of former members of the National
Security Council actually have suggested that you should go further, though,
and that Iran should be regarded in the same way as Japan. That, in other
words, nuclear reprocessing should be accepted, but monitored by the
international community. Is that remotely possible?

18.I think that the key, right now, is to initiate
a process that is meaningful, that is rigorous, between not only the United
States and Iran, bilaterally, but also continuing with the P5 plus one
discussions, in a way that’s constructive. Without going into specifics, what I
do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations.
On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in
preventing a nuclear arms in the region. Now-

19.But could Iran have the right to reprocess
energy?

20.Now one point that I want to make is that in my
speech in Prague, I talked about how we need to reinvigorate a much broader
agenda for nuclear nonproliferation - including the United States and Russia
drawing down our stockpiles in very significant ways, to the extent that Iran
feels that they are treated differently than anybody else. That makes them
embattled. To the extent that we’re having a broader conversation about how all
countries have an interest in containing and reducing, over time, the nuclear
proliferation throughout. That, I think, has to be part and parcel of our
broader agenda.

21.You’re going on to Europe, to Normandy - scene
of the great Allied coming together. Have you convinced European leaders,
taking a sort of broad look at Europe, as a whole, that it is necessary,
sometimes, to use force to get your way in the world? And I’m thinking,
obviously, particularly of Afghanistan. But almost in a wider sense, a kind of
Venus and Mars issue. Are the Europeans gonna be more on board now to the
American way of thinking?

22.Well look, I think any student of European history
understands that the devastation of, not just two world wars, but centuries of
war across the continent - and across the channel - means that Europeans
understand better than anybody the costs of war. It is legitimate and
understandable that they are hesitant. I think the United States has a similar
attitude. That we should be thinking in terms of our national defense, not
where can we initiate war. We had an attack against the United States that
killed 3,000 Americans. There have been multiple terrorist attacks planned, and
some successfully executed, against European states. And, at some point we have
to make sure that we are eliminating those networks that would do - could do -
our citizens harm. That is our first job as a state, as a government.

23.And European leaders are on board for that.

24.I think that they are on board on that. Now
there are going to be tactical issues, and strategies. And the politics of this
can sometimes be difficult. Listen, the idea of US troops in Afghanistan seven
years after 9/11, or eight years after 9/11, is hardly popular. At some point
we have to make the case that it is necessary. And I think that what we try to
do with our strategic review was to give a broader framework of, not just
military, but also diplomatic and development initiatives, that would move in
tandem with the military. And that framework, I think, is one that was heartily
embraced by European leaders, by NATO. Now we just gotta execute. And execution’s
always tough, especially in a world recession where people are looking at their
budgets.

25.We’re almost out of time, Mr. President. I
wanted to finish by asking you a sort of personal question. We’ve been through
all these issues, and they must weigh on your mind constantly. How do you
relax? What do you read? What does President Obama do?

26.Well nothing is better at pulling you out of
your world than having a couple of children. So I’ve got a ten-year-old and a
seven-year-old. And they’re planning, you know, pool parties, and talking about
homework, and trying to figure out how to get the dog back on the leash.

27.And family life works in the White House?

28.It really does. I mean, one of the huge
benefits of being president is I now have this nice home office, and I go
upstairs and I can have dinner with my family just about every night. And they
can travel with me when they’re able. And so we’ve got, I think, a very good
deal. And I’m grateful that I’ve got such a wonderful wife and kids. That’s my
main form of relaxation. If I can get in, a basketball game, or a round of
golf, or picking up a novel every once in a while - that doesn’t hurt.

29.You reading anything at the moment?

30.You know, I’m reading a book called
Netherland by Joseph O’Neil. Almost finished. Excellent novel.

31.We’ll let you get back to it. I’m sure you have
other things to do.